Literature DB >> 28856523

Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.

George W Vetrovec1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article addresses evolving devices and uses of hemodynamic support in the management of high-risk PCI and AMI with cardiogenic shock. RECENT
FINDINGS: Recent publications question the benefit of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump support for AMI Shock. Furthermore, in high-risk PCI, the Impella support system provides better late outcomes than does the intra-aortic balloon pump. We have entered a new era in which larger, higher flow devices that increase cardiac output while unloading the left ventricle provide better outcome. The current PCI population is higher risk, and often without surgical options. Hemodynamic support, most often utilizing Impella support, improves outcomes via providing the hemodynamic stability to allow complete revascularization and optimal lesion treatment. Regarding shock, preliminary data suggests that a concept of early left ventricular unloading before PCI maybe the critical factor for improving the outcome for acute myocardial infarction complicating myocardial infarction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AMI; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary intervention; ECMO; High risk PCI; Impella catheter; Intra-aortic balloon pump; Mechanical circulatory support; Tandem heart

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28856523     DOI: 10.1007/s11886-017-0905-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3782            Impact factor:   2.931


  33 in total

1.  Duration of balloon inflation for optimal stent deployment: five seconds is not enough.

Authors:  Thomas Hovasse; Darren Mylotte; Philippe Garot; Neus Salvatella; Marie-Claude Morice; Bernard Chevalier; Augusto Pichard; Thierry Lefèvre
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Complete revascularization: a quality-performance metric?

Authors:  Dean J Kereiakes
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Optimization of stent implantation using a high pressure inflation protocol.

Authors:  Srikanth Vallurupalli; Amit Bahia; Ernesto Ruiz-Rodriguez; Zubair Ahmed; Abdul Hakeem; Barry F Uretsky
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Ischemic outcomes after coronary intervention of calcified vessels in acute coronary syndromes. Pooled analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) TRIALS.

Authors:  Philippe Généreux; Mahesh V Madhavan; Gary S Mintz; Akiko Maehara; Tullio Palmerini; Laura Lasalle; Ke Xu; Tom McAndrew; Ajay Kirtane; Alexandra J Lansky; Sorin J Brener; Roxana Mehran; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study.

Authors:  William W O'Neill; Neal S Kleiman; Jeffrey Moses; Jose P S Henriques; Simon Dixon; Joseph Massaro; Igor Palacios; Brijeshwar Maini; Suresh Mulukutla; Vladimír Dzavík; Jeffrey Popma; Pamela S Douglas; Magnus Ohman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  The science behind percutaneous hemodynamic support: a review and comparison of support strategies.

Authors:  Daniel Burkhoff; Srihari S Naidu
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Eric J Velazquez; Kerry L Lee; Robert H Jones; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; James A Hill; Julio A Panza; Robert E Michler; Robert O Bonow; Torsten Doenst; Mark C Petrie; Jae K Oh; Lilin She; Vanessa L Moore; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; George Sopko; Jean L Rouleau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-03       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Long-Term Outcome of Incomplete Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry).

Authors:  Kristina Hambraeus; Karin Jensevik; Bo Lagerqvist; Bertil Lindahl; Roland Carlsson; Ramin Farzaneh-Far; Thomas Kellerth; Elmir Omerovic; Gregg Stone; Christoph Varenhorst; Stefan James
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 11.195

9.  A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Melchior Seyfarth; Dirk Sibbing; Iris Bauer; Georg Fröhlich; Lorenz Bott-Flügel; Robert Byrne; Josef Dirschinger; Adnan Kastrati; Albert Schömig
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry.

Authors:  William W O'Neill; Theodore Schreiber; David H W Wohns; Charanjit Rihal; Srihari S Naidu; Andrew B Civitello; Simon R Dixon; Joseph M Massaro; Brijeshwar Maini; E Magnus Ohman
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  2 in total

1.  Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Wenhai Shi; Wuwan Wang; Kechun Wang; Wei Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 2.  Cardiac intensive care management of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention using the venoarterial ECMO support.

Authors:  Marco Zuin; Gianluca Rigatelli; Ramesh Daggubati
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.214

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.